 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Coachmen Industries11/29/1999
FOR PUBLICATION
OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Defendants-Appellants Coachmen Industries, Inc. (Coachmen) and Sportscoach Corporation of America (Sportscoach) appeal the judgment of the trial court in favor of Plaintiffs-Appellees James H. Dunn and Barbara H. Dunn (Dunns).
We affirm.
ISSUES
Appellants present six issues which we consolidate and restate as:
1. Whether the jury's verdict is contrary to law.
2. Whether there is sufficient evidence to prove special damages flowing from the Dunns' defamation claim.
3. Whether the Dunns failed to overcome the Appellants' qualified privilege by a sufficient showing that the Appellants had abused the privilege.
4. Whether the trial court erred in submitting the issue of defamation to the jury.
5. Whether the award of punitive damages is contrary to law.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Sportscoach was a subsidiary of Coachmen, and both companies were involved in the manufacture of motor homes. The Dunns were employed by Sportscoach in the capacities of drivers and show coordinators. In driving and delivering vehicles manufactured by Sportscoach, the Dunns were asked by the transportation manager of Sportscoach to disconnect the odometers of a number of the vehicles. In 1991, Sportscoach closed and the Dunns interviewed at Coachmen. During the interview, Barbara Dunn mentioned that the Dunns had previously been ordered to disconnect odometers and that they would refuse to do so at Coachmen. The Dunns were not hired by Coachmen. Following an investigation by Richard Bowers, Coachmen's corporate legal counsel, letters were sent to four Sportscoach customers discussing the odometer tampering and naming the Dunns as the responsible parties. Bowers included checks with these letters as reimbursement to the customers for the unrecorded mileage on their vehicles. The Dunns were also named on the check stubs of these reimbursement checks. The Dunns filed a complaint for wrongful termination alleging that they had been terminated based upon their refusal to disconnect odometers. The complaint was later amended to include allegations of defamation based upon the letters sent by Coachmen's corporate counsel.
Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Appellants on the Dunns' claim for wrongful termination but returned verdicts against the Appellants with regard to the Dunns' claim of defamation and on Coachmen's counterclaim. Coachmen then filed a motion to correct error which was denied by the trial court. This appeal ensued.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
STANDARD OF REVIEW
On appeal, a general verdict will be sustained upon any theory consistent with the evidence. Tipmont Rural Elec. Membership Corp. v. Fischer, 697 N.E.2d 83, 86-87 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), aff'd, 716 N.E.2d 357 (Ind. 1999). We will neither reweigh the evidence nor Judge the credibility of the witnesses, but will consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment along with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. Only where there is a total failure of evidence or where the jury's verdict is contrary to the uncontradicted evidence will the verdict be reversed. Id. Thus, Appellants labor under a heavy burden in asserting error.
I. JURY VERDICT
A. Truth of Statements
For their first claim of error, Appellants contend that the jury's verdict regarding the Dunn's defamation claim is contrary to law because the statements contained in the letters sent by Coachmen's corporate counsel are true.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Indiana Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|